16 ms·

And here's Kapeli's explanation of what happened: https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of

And here's Kapeli's explanation of what happened: https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story https://blog.kapeli.com/dash-and-apple-my-side-of-the-story !!! it includes a recording of a phone call with Apple !!! Edit: After listening to the first 2 minutes of the call, i can say with absolute confidence that Apple is straight-up blackmailing him. I would love to hear opinions on whether this is something that could be taken to court. Here's the HN submission of the link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12680597

jwilcoxson 10y ago
Gets popcorn
mrkbxt 10y ago
wiretapping apple? yeah, good move.
- jwilcoxson 10y ago
  Call recording != wire tapping. Not that Apple will take kindly to it either way...
  - snowpanda 10y ago
    Call recording is not illegal in every state.
    - Crosseye_Jack 10y ago
      Isn't Kapeli from Romania? In which case - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Romania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Roman...
    - BradRuderman 10y ago
      I believe it is in California without their permission, not 100% sure.
      - MBCook 10y ago
        I'd be willing to bet that Apple's call start with a statement that they are recording the call, that means you can record the call to because they know it's being recorded.
        kstrauser 10y ago
        When a call starts with "this call may be recorded for quality assurance", I always say "thank you" to express my gratitude for them granting me explicit permission to record it.
      - protomyth 10y ago
        "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.
- robocat 10y ago
  He is in Romania where it is legal to record phone calls - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Romania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Roman...
Crosseye_Jack 10y ago
Listening to the recording it seems that they do want to get the account reinstated but want Kapeli to release a statement on why the account was deactivated. Which after reading the post and listening to the recording on why Apple hit the account it seems fair after all this has gone public. (Kapeli set up an account for a relative using his CC, gave them some of his old hardware and it's that account that was caught in the review fraud. So in Apples system the two accounts were linked so when they nuked one account, the other went along with it.) A Blog posting from Kapeli explaining the cause of the account ban and that he has worked with Apple to unlink the two accounts and resolve the situation. > What Apple has done: on Friday they told me they’d reactivate my account if I’d make a blog post admitting some wrongdoing. I didn't get from the call that he would have to admit and wrong doing, just explain what had happened and he got hit in the crossfire. Heck if I was in his boat I would end the blog post with "I would like to thank Apple and Phil for working with me to get this sorted and thanks to the community at large for helping to get this resolved." Not that they asked for a thank you but because I can see it from Apple's POV from Kapeli's recent Blog post.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  It doesn't matter what he has to admit or not. The issue lies in this sentence: > What Apple has done: on Friday they told me they’d reactivate my account if I’d make a blog post admitting some wrongdoing. The "if" is the problem here. Had Apple said "we'll reinstate your account AND please make a blog post stating xyz" everything would be fine. Making it conditional on the post despite being their mistake is just reprehensible.
  - galacticpony 10y ago
    It wasn't their mistake, it was his mistake. You can't just register an account, then hand it off to someone else and not be at least partially responsible for what happens through that account. If Apple didn't want to avoid the bad PR, they could just terminate their business relationship permanently, and they'd be in the right, even morally, since it was Kapeli who violated the trust.
galacticpony 10y ago
After listening to the entire thing, I can say that Kapeli sounds like a complete ignoramus. He has registered an account using his credentials, the account was involved in fraudulent activity, that makes him responsible, as an individual. Why is Apple supposed to even care that he doesn't control the other account anymore? He's supposed to control the account, according to the terms of service he agreed to. If he doesn't control it and he doesn't want to be responsible, he has to close it. Apple is giving him the opportunity to get back to having a business relationship, but he doesn't understand the problem. Apparently, neither do many of the other users on here. Apple has every right to terminate their business relationship,so how is it blackmail? It's more like a plea bargain...
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  Please read and listen again. He did not register the account, nor use his credentials (if he had, apple's contact attempts would've reached him). He only paid for it, and donated hardware.
  - galacticpony 10y ago
    The bank account used is credentials and Apple considers both accounts to belong to (quote) "the same legal entity" based on that fact. This is the way Apple conducts business.
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      It is indeed the way they do, but you are saying he should've known that, when he had in fact no way of knowing.
      - galacticpony 10y ago
        It is certainly knowable that the identity on the credit card is part of the verification process and that it must match his own. If the name he entered wasn't his own, the verification would likely have been denied: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6238222?tstart=0 https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6238222?tstart=0 That's why I'm suspicious as to which name he actually entered.
newsat13 10y ago
Apple is so childish. It's just a single developer against a whole company. Is it so hard for a company to just bury what happened and move on?
- wutbrodo 10y ago
  Has there ever been a period during which Apple didn't behave childishly? Its practically in their DNA. All the way from cheating a co-founder out of payment for a contract to "I will spend every last penny apple has in the bank and start a 'thermonuclear war' to destroy android" (condensed from a couple quotes for clarity).
- newsat13 10y ago
  Why the downvotes? OK. Apple is awesome and behaving like a proper adult. They are rightfully flexing their muscles and making sure that everyone knows that they are in the right! I wish every corporation would make it as part of their vision to set the record straight against indie developers. World is such a better place thanks to this controversy.
  - sctb 10y ago
    Please don't complain about downvotes and then follow-up with unproductive sarcasm. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
abalone 10y ago
It sure sounds like Schiller's team screwed up here and should reinstate his account forthwith. In short, Kapeli helped a relative open an account years ago but has otherwise been unassociated with that account. He technically shouldn't have used his credit card to help his relative, but this is Romania and it's just a nominal $99 fee, so he probably didn't think much of it. Apple's stance is they now look at them as "linked" accounts due to the use of his credit card and old devices, so they were justified in shutting down his account for fraudulent activity on the other one. Problem is Apple never contacted Kapeli's account before shutting both of them down. They didn't do any extra due diligence for a top developer. Their notices only went to the other account, apparently, and Kapeli never had a chance to see them. He just woke up one day and his account was banned. Now, that's just dumb. If the accounts are linked, why not notify both accounts? Kapeli's an extremely well-respected app and has oodles of credibility. That alone should have triggered a deeper investigation before shutting him down. That fact that they know what happened here and still refuse to reinstate the account is shameful.
- carterehsmith 10y ago
  > "In short, Kapeli helped a relative open an account years ago but has otherwise been unassociated with that account." That's what Kapeli claims. How exactly do you know that the above is true? As opposed to, you know, himself creating two accounts.
  - abalone 10y ago
    Logic. Apple called him and conceded that the reason they thought they were the same "entity" is simply because both used the same credit card number. If Kapeli wanted to be deceptive and create another account to commit a bunch of fraud on that appeared unassociated with him, he'd use another credit card, bundle ID, etc.
    - dpark 10y ago
      Of course, because no one committing fraud ever makes mistakes. I have no idea if Popescu was really involved in the fraudulent activity or not. But dismissing it as too dumb to be possible is no better than dismissing the possibility of Apple making a detection mistake as too dumb to be possible.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jwilcoxson 10y ago

Gets popcorn

mrkbxt 10y ago

wiretapping apple? yeah, good move.

jwilcoxson 10y ago
Call recording != wire tapping. Not that Apple will take kindly to it either way...
- snowpanda 10y ago
  Call recording is not illegal in every state.
  - Crosseye_Jack 10y ago
    Isn't Kapeli from Romania? In which case - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Romania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Roman...
  - BradRuderman 10y ago
    I believe it is in California without their permission, not 100% sure.
    - MBCook 10y ago
      I'd be willing to bet that Apple's call start with a statement that they are recording the call, that means you can record the call to because they know it's being recorded.
      - kstrauser 10y ago
        When a call starts with "this call may be recorded for quality assurance", I always say "thank you" to express my gratitude for them granting me explicit permission to record it.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.
robocat 10y ago
He is in Romania where it is legal to record phone calls - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Romania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#Roman...

Crosseye_Jack 10y ago

Listening to the recording it seems that they do want to get the account reinstated but want Kapeli to release a statement on why the account was deactivated. Which after reading the post and listening to the recording on why Apple hit the account it seems fair after all this has gone public. (Kapeli set up an account for a relative using his CC, gave them some of his old hardware and it's that account that was caught in the review fraud. So in Apples system the two accounts were linked so when they nuked one account, the other went along with it.) A Blog posting from Kapeli explaining the cause of the account ban and that he has worked with Apple to unlink the two accounts and resolve the situation. > What Apple has done: on Friday they told me they’d reactivate my account if I’d make a blog post admitting some wrongdoing. I didn't get from the call that he would have to admit and wrong doing, just explain what had happened and he got hit in the crossfire. Heck if I was in his boat I would end the blog post with "I would like to thank Apple and Phil for working with me to get this sorted and thanks to the community at large for helping to get this resolved." Not that they asked for a thank you but because I can see it from Apple's POV from Kapeli's recent Blog post.

Mithaldu 10y ago
It doesn't matter what he has to admit or not. The issue lies in this sentence: > What Apple has done: on Friday they told me they’d reactivate my account if I’d make a blog post admitting some wrongdoing. The "if" is the problem here. Had Apple said "we'll reinstate your account AND please make a blog post stating xyz" everything would be fine. Making it conditional on the post despite being their mistake is just reprehensible.
- galacticpony 10y ago
  It wasn't their mistake, it was his mistake. You can't just register an account, then hand it off to someone else and not be at least partially responsible for what happens through that account. If Apple didn't want to avoid the bad PR, they could just terminate their business relationship permanently, and they'd be in the right, even morally, since it was Kapeli who violated the trust.

galacticpony 10y ago

After listening to the entire thing, I can say that Kapeli sounds like a complete ignoramus. He has registered an account using his credentials, the account was involved in fraudulent activity, that makes him responsible, as an individual. Why is Apple supposed to even care that he doesn't control the other account anymore? He's supposed to control the account, according to the terms of service he agreed to. If he doesn't control it and he doesn't want to be responsible, he has to close it. Apple is giving him the opportunity to get back to having a business relationship, but he doesn't understand the problem. Apparently, neither do many of the other users on here. Apple has every right to terminate their business relationship,so how is it blackmail? It's more like a plea bargain...

Mithaldu 10y ago
Please read and listen again. He did not register the account, nor use his credentials (if he had, apple's contact attempts would've reached him). He only paid for it, and donated hardware.
- galacticpony 10y ago
  The bank account used is credentials and Apple considers both accounts to belong to (quote) "the same legal entity" based on that fact. This is the way Apple conducts business.
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    It is indeed the way they do, but you are saying he should've known that, when he had in fact no way of knowing.
    - galacticpony 10y ago
      It is certainly knowable that the identity on the credit card is part of the verification process and that it must match his own. If the name he entered wasn't his own, the verification would likely have been denied: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6238222?tstart=0 https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6238222?tstart=0 That's why I'm suspicious as to which name he actually entered.

newsat13 10y ago

Apple is so childish. It's just a single developer against a whole company. Is it so hard for a company to just bury what happened and move on?

wutbrodo 10y ago
Has there ever been a period during which Apple didn't behave childishly? Its practically in their DNA. All the way from cheating a co-founder out of payment for a contract to "I will spend every last penny apple has in the bank and start a 'thermonuclear war' to destroy android" (condensed from a couple quotes for clarity).
newsat13 10y ago
Why the downvotes? OK. Apple is awesome and behaving like a proper adult. They are rightfully flexing their muscles and making sure that everyone knows that they are in the right! I wish every corporation would make it as part of their vision to set the record straight against indie developers. World is such a better place thanks to this controversy.
- sctb 10y ago
  Please don't complain about downvotes and then follow-up with unproductive sarcasm. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

abalone 10y ago

It sure sounds like Schiller's team screwed up here and should reinstate his account forthwith. In short, Kapeli helped a relative open an account years ago but has otherwise been unassociated with that account. He technically shouldn't have used his credit card to help his relative, but this is Romania and it's just a nominal $99 fee, so he probably didn't think much of it. Apple's stance is they now look at them as "linked" accounts due to the use of his credit card and old devices, so they were justified in shutting down his account for fraudulent activity on the other one. Problem is Apple never contacted Kapeli's account before shutting both of them down. They didn't do any extra due diligence for a top developer. Their notices only went to the other account, apparently, and Kapeli never had a chance to see them. He just woke up one day and his account was banned. Now, that's just dumb. If the accounts are linked, why not notify both accounts? Kapeli's an extremely well-respected app and has oodles of credibility. That alone should have triggered a deeper investigation before shutting him down. That fact that they know what happened here and still refuse to reinstate the account is shameful.

carterehsmith 10y ago
> "In short, Kapeli helped a relative open an account years ago but has otherwise been unassociated with that account." That's what Kapeli claims. How exactly do you know that the above is true? As opposed to, you know, himself creating two accounts.
- abalone 10y ago
  Logic. Apple called him and conceded that the reason they thought they were the same "entity" is simply because both used the same credit card number. If Kapeli wanted to be deceptive and create another account to commit a bunch of fraud on that appeared unassociated with him, he'd use another credit card, bundle ID, etc.
  - dpark 10y ago
    Of course, because no one committing fraud ever makes mistakes. I have no idea if Popescu was really involved in the fraudulent activity or not. But dismissing it as too dumb to be possible is no better than dismissing the possibility of Apple making a detection mistake as too dumb to be possible.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]